PER
CURIAM: Petitioner Eugene Edward Nolan, as personal representative of the
estate of John William Nolan, appeals from the circuit court's order granting
summary judgment in favor of Respondents with respect to the issue of whether a
meaningful offer of underinsured motorist coverage ("UIM") was made to
Nolan. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 38-77-160
(2002) (requiring automobile insurance
carriers to offer UIM coverage up to the limits of the insured's liability
coverage); Butler v. Unisun Ins. Co., 323 S.C. 402, 405, 475 S.E.2d 758,
760 (1996) (stating if the insurer fails to comply with its duty to make a
meaningful offer, the policy will be reformed by operation of law to include
UIM coverage up to the limits of liability insurance carried by the insured);
S.C. Code Ann. § 38-77-350(C) (2002) ("An automobile insurer is not
required to make a new offer of coverage on any automobile insurance policy
which renews, extends, changes, supersedes, or replaces an existing
policy."); Floyd v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 367 S.C. 253, 264,
626 S.E.2d 6, 12 (2005) (holding where the insurer is not entitled to the
statutory presumption that a meaningful offer of UIM coverage was made, the
insurer can still demonstrate that a meaningful offer of UIM coverage was made
to the insured under the test established in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
v. Wannamaker, 291 S.C. 518, 354 S.E.2d 555 (1987)); Wannamaker,
291 S.C. at 521, 354 S.E.2d at 556 (establishing the following test to
determine whether the insurer made a meaningful offer of UIM coverage to the
insured: (1) the insurer's notification process must be commercially
reasonable, whether oral or in writing; (2) the insurer must specify the limits
of optional coverage and not merely offer additional coverage in general terms;
(3) the insurer must intelligibly advise the insured of the nature of the
optional coverage; and (4) the insured must be told that optional coverages are
available for an additional premium); Elrod v. All, 243 S.C. 425, 436,
134 S.E.2d 410, 416 (1964) (stating a party is bound by his or her pleadings).